Different state past

[NGC 6712]

Well, I happen to believe in Churchill, Stalin, Chaplin, Einstein..etc. Call me traditional...You been lost in astro physical only la la land a while or something?

Those memories are fabrications caused by the changes to physical laws and the universe 2 weeks ago. It was a different state in the past and you cannot extrapolate back beyond that point no matter what. Your ideas about such supposed people are just blips in your mind caused by the different state past from 2 weeks ago. This change in physical law affects the physical state of the mind and the stored memories therein. All these delusions of an Adam and ppl living to hundreds of years are just as I said - delusions.

 

[Tiberius]

OK then. Let's disect that for you.

Wake up call...science does need evidence!

I never said it didn't, and you'll also notice that neither I nor Trogool claimed that a SSP being the simplest point of view was a valid scientific reason for holding it.

Both of us were saying that it is the simplest solution that fits all of the evidence we have at the moment.

Now, if you have some evidence that says otherwise, then please feel free to present it. But in the past, all you've done is show us old stories about people who lived a long time. Old stories about people living for centuries is not evidence for a DSP anymore than Aesop's Fables about talking animals is evidence for a DSP.

Yes belief....assumption...guess...etc. Sorry sonny, no cigar. You need fact...evidence....proof....etc.

And as I said, it was never presented as scientific evidence. it was presented as the simplest solution that happens to fit all the available evidence. If you want to convince people to abandon a position that is both a) simple and b) consistent with the evidence, then you must produce something to show why it is wrong. And as I mentioned above, you have never done that. Remember, your old stories don't count until you can prove to us that your stories are telling the truth.

Given that we see....what...the present state!!!???? What else did you think we should see pray tell???

Everything we see around us - and I do mean EVERYTHING - is fully explainable by a SSP. So either everything made in the DSP was somehow destroyed, then replaced by things in the present state, or your DSP idea is wrong.

(And additionally, if the first option I presented above is true, it still doesn't explain how all the new stuff created in the present state happens to look like it's millions of years old.)

All we need to do is show that the state is not known. After that, we all take a hike to the woods of belief. There....I walk with a very very big stick.

False.

Proving that it is unknown does not prove it is different.

Your white friend comes up and and tells you she has a boyfriend. His skin colour is unknown. Does that mean it is different to her skin colour? Of course not. If something is unknown, then you are completely incapable of saying anything about it. So if you are saying that the state in the past was unknown, then you can't possibly say that it was different!

Excellent. So try to come up with more. Seems obvious....

Oh, do you not remember that YOU, not I, were the one presenting ancient legends as facts and evidence?

 

[SkyWriting]

And that fundamental assumption made by science is 'induction' if I'm not mistaken

You are. That's mathematics when phrased that way.

 

[Elendur]

You are. That's mathematics when phrased that way.

Then I've misunderstood this part:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It might be because I'm more versed in mathematics than anything else.

 

[NGC 6712]

You are. That's mathematics when phrased that way.

You are in error. Mathematics is a deductive logic system. The scientific method is an inductive system. This is why mathematics is not a science.

 

[dad]

Hard evidence is a term used in legal procedures, but I can tell you plenty of evidence that would stand up in court has been presented.

For a same state past!!?? Come on now.

Says who?

God. The earth will be burned. That is flame.

You're reading it wrong, it's not your ideas, it's your inability to respond to the debate.

Can you bring anything to the table in this?

Take for example this post of yours I am responding to now. The trick is to make your post substantive, interesting, and containing something specific that requires a response. Otherwise, it is froth.

 

[dad]

Those memories are fabrications caused by the changes to physical laws and the universe 2 weeks ago.

Ok. Thanks for stating your opinion. I find it is nice to have actual cosmo geeks who have worked in the field honestly present their views.

It was a different state in the past and you cannot extrapolate back beyond that point no matter what.

You then call all men insane who think they lived more than a week. Gee thanks.


Of course those that claim there is no spiritual also insult the majority of mankind that have the peace and expectation that their departed loved ones are safe and there somewhere, to be met again.

 

[Elendur]

For a same state past!!?? Come on now.

Yes.

God. The earth will be burned. That is flame.

Well that's nice.

Take for example this post of yours I am responding to now. The trick is to make your post substantive, interesting, and containing something specific that requires a response. Otherwise, it is froth.

You mean like writing "False!!!" or "Victory sure is sweet"?

The challenge was substantive. Because it was of importance to the 'debate'.
It was interesting. Because if you would respond it would be a major breakthrough.
It contained a very specific question, requiring a response.
So by your criteria, it's not froth.
Then what's stopping you from answering?

 

[dad]

Yes.


Well that's nice.



You mean like writing "False!!!" or "Victory sure is sweet"?

The challenge was substantive. Because it was of importance to the 'debate'.
It was interesting. Because if you would respond it would be a major breakthrough.
It contained a very specific question, requiring a response.
So by your criteria, it's not froth.
Then what's stopping you from answering?

No idea what you are babbling about. I do note however that you make a false claim that present state laws can be shown to have existed in the ancient times. They can't, actually. I will point out that in your spam link list you posted that purportedly supported a same state past, I picked out one sample link and refuted it! If your memory is not so good, it was a link about present state decay and how it is used in dating.

That all you got?

 

[Elendur]

No idea what you are babbling about. I do note however that you make a false claim that present state laws can be shown to have existed in the ancient times. They can't, actually. I will point out that in your spam link list you posted that purportedly supported a same state past, I picked out one sample link and refuted it! If your memory is not so good, it was a link about present state decay and how it is used in dating.

That all you got?

Lets start over then.
You're claiming the past had a different state than the present state.
Can you provide any evidence for that?

I'm claiming the past had the same state (or close enough).
My evidence for that is:

• The only state observed is the present state.
• Absence of objective evidence for the different state.

Please answer the question this time.

 

[dad]

I never said it didn't, and you'll also notice that neither I nor Trogool claimed that a SSP being the simplest point of view was a valid scientific reason for holding it.

Well then thanks for admitting that. Nothing else matters! Science is on trail here in case you missed it. Once we see that the rabid godless fables of an alternate creation and etc are not science, it is over for you. (not me)

Both of us were saying that it is the simplest solution that fits all of the evidence we have at the moment.

Absurd. In other words, it kinda seems and feels right, based on fishbowl norms.

Now, if you have some evidence that says otherwise, then please feel free to present it. But in the past, all you've done is show us old stories about people who lived a long time. Old stories about people living for centuries is not evidence for a DSP anymore than Aesop's Fables about talking animals is evidence for a DSP.

Once we all saw that you have no science and claim no science, that became unnecessary. Believe whatever you want, who cares? If you want educated opinions of what to believe, you could ask.

And as I said, it was never presented as scientific evidence. it was presented as the simplest solution that happens to fit all the available evidence.

Again, thanks. How sweet it is!

If you want to convince people to abandon a position that is both a) simple and b) consistent with the evidence, then you must produce something to show why it is wrong. And as I mentioned above, you have never done that. Remember, your old stories don't count until you can prove to us that your stories are telling the truth.

Hey abandon or cling to any belief you want. Free will and all...just do not dare call it real knowledge or science....as you seem to be aware now.

Everything we see around us - and I do mean EVERYTHING - is fully explainable by a SSP.

Really? Time? Spiritual content in human experience and history?

So either everything made in the DSP was somehow destroyed, then replaced by things in the present state, or your DSP idea is wrong.

No. Look at time dilation for an example. Time which they claim is a part of the space time fabric of the universe can work on people differently. One may experience slowing of time for example. Yet both people that are affected by the different time are still fine and alive. Just because Noah was in this present state in later life (presumably) doesn't mean he was not alive here! If a tree was here, it also would till have been alive etc etc. A new state does not mean another creation, or mass death.

(And additionally, if the first option I presented above is true, it still doesn't explain how all the new stuff created in the present state happens to look like it's millions of years old.)

The way it looks so to you is by looking at for example a lot of daughter materials that you assume got here in this state for no apparent reason! (rather than just found themselves here like Noah).

False.

Proving that it is unknown does not prove it is different.

It proves it is different than many so called science folks claim! Unknown is different than known!

Your white friend comes up and and tells you she has a boyfriend. His skin colour is unknown. Does that mean it is different to her skin colour? Of course not. If something is unknown, then you are completely incapable of saying anything about it. So if you are saying that the state in the past was unknown, then you can't possibly say that it was different!

I am capable of reading what God and people did and said about the far past. Only to you is it unknown.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then I've misunderstood this part:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It might be because I'm more versed in mathematics than anything else.

Your link does point out the questionable use of inductive reasoning so I'd say that how science works as well. Good call

 

[Tiberius]

Well then thanks for admitting that. Nothing else matters! Science is on trail here in case you missed it. Once we see that the rabid godless fables of an alternate creation and etc are not science, it is over for you. (not me)

Ah, but you can't deny the fact that there is evidence supporting a same state past though.

Absurd. In other words, it kinda seems and feels right, based on fishbowl norms.

You're the one in the fishbowl. You want everything to fit into the conclusions you have already come to.

Once we all saw that you have no science and claim no science, that became unnecessary. Believe whatever you want, who cares? If you want educated opinions of what to believe, you could ask.

Just because it works without scientific evidence, doesn't mean there is none. There is a ton of evidence.

Again, thanks. How sweet it is!

And as I said, it was presented as being the simplest explanation that fits the facts. That doesn't mean that there is no scientific evidence. There is lots of scientific evidence.

Hey abandon or cling to any belief you want. Free will and all...just do not dare call it real knowledge or science....as you seem to be aware now.

Oh, how I wish you;d practice what you preach and stop presenting your old stories as knowledge!

Really? Time? Spiritual content in human experience and history?

Yep.

No. Look at time dilation for an example. Time which they claim is a part of the space time fabric of the universe can work on people differently. One may experience slowing of time for example. Yet both people that are affected by the different time are still fine and alive. Just because Noah was in this present state in later life (presumably) doesn't mean he was not alive here! If a tree was here, it also would till have been alive etc etc. A new state does not mean another creation, or mass death.

Oh, you make me laugh! You try to puff yourself up and appear important and knowledgeable, but anyone who knows even the smallest thing about relativity will just laugh at you.

The way it looks so to you is by looking at for example a lot of daughter materials that you assume got here in this state for no apparent reason! (rather than just found themselves here like Noah).

And once again, I will ask you that question that you've never answered...

If what you say is true, why does every single rock on the planet have exactly the amount of daughter material we'd expect to see if it was formed long ago in a SSP?

I mean, one or two samples having the right amount, I could buy as a coincidence, but ALL of them? Nah, I don't buy that for a second.

It proves it is different than many so called science folks claim! Unknown is different than known!

If you say it is unknown, how do you know enough about it to say it was different?

I am capable of reading what God and people did and said about the far past. Only to you is it unknown.

I know what they SAY happened, buy how do you know what ACTUALLY happened? Just because something is written down doesn't make it true, y'know.

 

[dad]

Ah, but you can't deny the fact that there is evidence supporting a same state past though.

Yes I can and do. The evidence doesn't support a same state past only your belief system superimposed onto the evidence does that.

You're the one in the fishbowl. You want everything to fit into the conclusions you have already come to.

That is not a fishbowl. That is human nature. When I use the term fishbowl I refer to a limited sphere, which science of man clearly is. What you think it is unlimited?

Just because it works without scientific evidence, doesn't mean there is none. There is a ton of evidence.

What 'works' without evidence??? Where is this ton of evidence for what you claim works without evidence!!!? You are fraying at the seams here.

And as I said, it was presented as being the simplest explanation that fits the facts. That doesn't mean that there is no scientific evidence. There is lots of scientific evidence.

Then get to it man. You keep changing your tune.

Oh, how I wish you;d practice what you preach and stop presenting your old stories as knowledge!

If you knew some factual reason to doubt what is known, then we could look at that. Meanwhile you know nothing that opposes the bible.

Oh, you make me laugh! You try to puff yourself up and appear important and knowledgeable, but anyone who knows even the smallest thing about relativity will just laugh at you.

If you think that my point on real time relates to fishbowl relativity, then you missed all that matters.


What is time? Go ahead, tell us as best you can. I say you do not know.

And once again, I will ask you that question that you've never answered...

If what you say is true, why does every single rock on the planet have exactly the amount of daughter material we'd expect to see if it was formed long ago in a SSP?

Because the expectations you have are based on what we actually have, so naturally when you add a fantasy dream past where you extrapolate based on what we see, there will be some connection.

I mean, one or two samples having the right amount, I could buy as a coincidence, but ALL of them? Nah, I don't buy that for a second.

If present state laws apply all over the planet I have no idea why you would think that some areas or rocks would somehow not be included? Once a rock is in this state, then it falls into a decay mode. Any daughter material that was there doing something else, would now be in the role of being a product of a parent.

If you say it is unknown, how do you know enough about it to say it was different?

Unknown to science. Not to me. Not to history and God and the bible.

I know what they SAY happened, buy how do you know what ACTUALLY happened? Just because something is written down doesn't make it true, y'know.

I know it is true because I know God is true. His truth has been demonstrated over time. The number of days from a proclamation of a king till Messiah came for example. The entire life and death and resurrection, virgin birth, town, and etc etc etc all laid out in advance. So yes, I know. It is proven. Tested. Repeated.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes I can and do. The evidence doesn't support a same state past only your belief system superimposed onto the evidence does that.

The evidence DOES support a SSP. We see things that are impossible if the laws of the universe were different a few thousand years ago, as I have been explaining to you constantly throughout this thread. If you deny a SSP, then you are wrong.

That is not a fishbowl. That is human nature. When I use the term fishbowl I refer to a limited sphere, which science of man clearly is. What you think it is unlimited?

What is the fishbowl is the fact that you can't conceive of your old stories being wrong.

Here's a question for you, dad...

Let's say you had none of your old stories. No Bible, no ancient stories, nothing. Would you still think there was a DSP? And if so, why?

What 'works' without evidence??? Where is this ton of evidence for what you claim works without evidence!!!? You are fraying at the seams here.

The conclusion that there was a SSP works, because it explains everything we see and we know the present state can exist.

Can you point out something that only a DSP can explain?

Then get to it man. You keep changing your tune.

Already explained it. Don't blame me if you refuse to look at it. I've taken the horse to water, but I can';t make you drink.

If you knew some factual reason to doubt what is known, then we could look at that. Meanwhile you know nothing that opposes the bible.

Just because it is written in an old book doesn't make it known.

If you think that my point on real time relates to fishbowl relativity, then you missed all that matters.

What you missed is the fact that relativity does NOT imply a different state. Just a different experience of a single state. And it only applies at tremendous speed.

What is time? Go ahead, tell us as best you can. I say you do not know.

My understanding (I'll freely admit to not being an expert in this field) is that time is a dimension in the universe.

Because the expectations you have are based on what we actually have, so naturally when you add a fantasy dream past where you extrapolate based on what we see, there will be some connection.

The results we get when we examine a rock are based on objective, empirical observation. Expectation has nothing to do with it. You have not explained it, and you have revealed your ignorance about science.

If present state laws apply all over the planet I have no idea why you would think that some areas or rocks would somehow not be included? Once a rock is in this state, then it falls into a decay mode. Any daughter material that was there doing something else, would now be in the role of being a product of a parent.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying?

Unknown to science. Not to me. Not to history and God and the bible.

I know it is true because I know God is true. His truth has been demonstrated over time. The number of days from a proclamation of a king till Messiah came for example. The entire life and death and resurrection, virgin birth, town, and etc etc etc all laid out in advance. So yes, I know. It is proven. Tested. Repeated.

Fraid not. There is no way anyone can test those claims. We can only go on the word of others in the past.

The same claim has been made to prove that Islam is the correct religion. It means nothing. Your claims are unsupported.

You are defeated.

You cannot produce evidence for your DSP idea. You cannot explain why radiometric dating works if your DSP is correct. You cannot answer any questions about a DSP.

You are defeated.

 

[Elendur]

Your link does point out the questionable use of inductive reasoning so I'd say that how science works as well. Good call

Yes, though it's still the best we've got for now.

 

[dad]

The evidence DOES support a SSP. We see things that are impossible if the laws of the universe were different a few thousand years ago, as I have been explaining to you constantly throughout this thread. If you deny a SSP, then you are wrong.

False. No evidence in the minutest amount supports a same state past on and near earth. No present decay, or ratios, or tree rings, or layers, or fossil record, or anything at all in any conceivable way. Rather than pretend something does, put it on the table. I have already explained how one requires a present set of forces and laws to give meaning to any dating methods, and you sir, do not have it.

What is the fishbowl is the fact that you can't conceive of your old stories being wrong.

Here's a question for you, dad...

Let's say you had none of your old stories. No Bible, no ancient stories, nothing. Would you still think there was a DSP? And if so, why?

The key comes from God who made it all. If you want to toss out last week, and all records and God and the spiritual, and history, and the proven bible, then you are in an impossible situation from which there can be no other exit.

If all you want to do is go tip toeing through present state tulips singing la de da, and depending solely on the physical only present state science of fallen man, then all you can do is say you do not know. There is no other option. That is the end of the matter. There is only one way to get real wisdom, and that is from above.

The conclusion that there was a SSP works, because it explains everything we see and we know the present state can exist.

Circular. Name ANYTHING that FIRST does not assume one!!! There is nothing, nowhere, nohow. Never will be either.

Can you point out something that only a DSP can explain?

Spirits, which means history. God. The bible. The flood, the tower of Babel, angels marrying women, creation, etc.

What you missed is the fact that relativity does NOT imply a different state. Just a different experience of a single state. And it only applies at tremendous speed.

I do not miss that at all. Not sure what you are thinking. However, we can say that time is thought of as part of the space time fabric throughout the universe by science, right?

My understanding (I'll freely admit to not being an expert in this field) is that time is a dimension in the universe.

Bingo!!!! "In" the universe. The one that earth folks look at from earth in this time! However, what needs to be known to get perspective is that there is an independent time..the real macoy that does not require our universe. Man doesn't even know what time is.

The results we get when we examine a rock are based on objective, empirical observation. Expectation has nothing to do with it. You have not explained it, and you have revealed your ignorance about science.

False, they are based on assuming daughter material ALL came to exist in the way it is now produced.

The same claim has been made to prove that Islam is the correct religion. It means nothing. Your claims are unsupported.

False Islam just started to exist some centuries ago, not even a player in the creation debate!!! I think they accept that Gabriel told them stuff, but will not accept the stuff Gabriel said before that contradicts that. (correct me if I have that wrong someone knowledgeable in that faith)

Get used to the idea that you cannot defeat me. That was apparent long ago, and only crystallizes with time ...doesn't matter what little claim you stick in your sig.

 

[MostlyLurking]

I'm still getting acclimated here so I have some questions:

You said that Science is on trial here. In what way? What is its crime?

Also, you wrote of "time dilation". I probably understand relativity theory to the degree to which a non-physicist can reach some level of understanding of it. But I'm having difficulty understanding what *you* mean by time dilation, as you seem to apply it in ways which differ from the usual meaning.

False. No evidence in the minutest amount supports a same state past on and near earth. No present decay, or ratios, or tree rings, or layers, or fossil record, or anything at all in any conceivable way.

I don't understand your claim. There are plenty of "cross-confirmation" procedures which have demonstrated an amazing continuity, right back to a relatively short time after the Big Bang. I've not kept up on that field but I thought that the measurements affirm that reality to within a few hundred thousand years of the Big Bang. There appears to be some scientists on this forum so perhaps a physicist could comment on that. The speed of light, c, has been confirmed constant almost to the very beginning.

And the only people I've known who insist on challenging this are those who are fixated on trying to hold up a young earth cosmology. So in other words, people like Barry Satterfield are not starting with the data and reaching a conclusion that the speed of light has slowed over time. Instead, he knew that his Young Earth Creationism posed all sorts of problems in the light of mountains of evidence to the contrary, so he worked hard to come up with a convoluted scheme under which he claimed to confirm it scientifically. But all he managed to do was propose a system where the problems multiplied. It was as if he had no idea that c is involved in thousands of important formulas, even at the level of basic cell metabolism. Thus, if the speed of light was much faster, in order to support a 6,000 year old earth, the earth itself would have burned to a crisp and digesting a sandwich would cause one to melt.

So I don't think I understand what you are saying.

And as I wrote, I've never encountered anyone who has made claims similar to yours who wasn't starting from a Young Earth Creationist worldview and then was trying to force science to fit it. I've never met anyone who started from the scientific data and reached where you are without some sort of Bible-related motivation. (That may be acceptable theology for some but it isn't science by any means.)

False. No evidence in the minutest amount supports a same state past on and near earth.

I can understand, perhaps, a statement saying that you don't find the evidence for a steady state past convincing. But to claim that there is *NO EVIDENCE in the minutest* is silly.

For example, even The Flat-Earth Theory has evidence for it. You can't say that there is/was *NO EVIDENCE* for a flat earth. If there was *ZERO EVIDENCE* for it, then nobody would have ever affirmed that theory. What evidence is there for a flat earth? One could cite something like, "If one carefully measures an interval of just one mile on the surface of the earth, a surveyor would measure a drop of only about 8 inches from "flatness". That is very close to being flat!

False. No evidence in the minutest amount supports a same state past on and near earth. No present decay, or ratios, or tree rings, or layers, or fossil record, or anything at all in any conceivable way. Rather than pretend something does, put it on the table. I have already explained how one requires a present set of forces and laws to give meaning to any dating methods, and you sir, do not have it.

Are you saying that there are multiple creations, each with its own set of laws and physical constants?

Regardless of your answer to the above question, if you believe those laws and constants get changed somewhere along the timeline, the burden of proof would be on you for that.

And if you truly believe there is merit to your claims (and you have actual scientific reasons and not just theological or philosophical ones), I would suggest that you submit them to a peer-reviewed journal. Such a radical proposition, if you could successfully sustain it, would certainly bring you fame and fortune. Or at least tenure.

I have already explained how one requires a present set of forces and laws to give meaning to any dating methods, and you sir, do not have it.

I think the world's scientists would disagree with you. But again, why not publish it and see if it holds water?

Get used to the idea that you cannot defeat me. That was apparent long ago, and only crystallizes with time....

Defeat you at what? What is the nature of the contest?

Who judged or scored this competition? Or are you simply declaring yourself the winner by your own authority??

One may experience slowing of time for example.

Yes, I'll agree to that. I've listened to some of Barak Obama's speeches. Time slows to an excruciating slow speed.

 

[MostlyLurking]

re: dad's posts denying various principles of physics including same state past


I would not normally ask about someone's educational background and credentials on a forum of this sort (seeing how it is geared to the general public) but considering how your claims *and confidence* are so, well, how should I word this,*bombastic*, I'll go ahead and ask:

What is your background in terms of fields of study? One would need considerable training in astrophysics, at the very least, in order to expect an assumption of credibility on the part of your readers, if you are claiming that you've successfully overridden the scientific community on these matters.

I'm not asking you to post your entire C.V. But it would definitely help readers to *contextualize* your bold claims if we knew just a little of the depth and breadth of your scientific training. Can we assume at least a Master's level of background in some area of physics or other relevant field?

I also ask because it at least appears that you are unfamiliar with some rather significant issues that would bear upon your claims, I'd like to know if you've adequately addressed them at some point in your published scholarship *or* you are simply posturing.

 

[Tiberius]

False. No evidence in the minutest amount supports a same state past on and near earth. No present decay, or ratios, or tree rings, or layers, or fossil record, or anything at all in any conceivable way. Rather than pretend something does, put it on the table. I have already explained how one requires a present set of forces and laws to give meaning to any dating methods, and you sir, do not have it.

There is a ton of evidence, I have presented it, you haven't understood it and you haven't been able to explain it. Your claim of a DSP falls flat.

The key comes from God who made it all. If you want to toss out last week, and all records and God and the spiritual, and history, and the proven bible, then you are in an impossible situation from which there can be no other exit.

None of the miraculous claims in the Bible have been proven. There is no evidence for a global flood, a burning bush or Jesus feeding hundreds with a few loaves of bread.

And you have no way to verify any of your old stories.

If all you want to do is go tip toeing through present state tulips singing la de da, and depending solely on the physical only present state science of fallen man, then all you can do is say you do not know. There is no other option. That is the end of the matter. There is only one way to get real wisdom, and that is from above.

If all you want to do is go tip toeing through different state tulips singing la de da, and depending solely on the story only different state science of ancient unverifiable myth, then all you can do is say you do not know. There is no other option. That is the end of the matter. There is only one way to get real wisdom, and that is from unbiased study of reality.

Circular. Name ANYTHING that FIRST does not assume one!!! There is nothing, nowhere, nohow. Never will be either.

Oh, this tired old song again? Very well, I will play it your way and assume that there was a DSP.

If there was a different state past, then the ratio of parent to daughter to granddaughter to great-granddaughter materials would not be so consistent among rock samples all over the world, nor would the ratios match what the "present-state" assumption of radiometric dating predicts.

An analysis of any and all rock samples of any kind from anywhere in the world produces results that are consistent with all other rock samples, and match exactly what the present state assumption of radiometric dating predicts.

This is impossible if there was a DSP.

So, we see something that DSP tells us is impossible. However, reality does not lie. Therefore, DSP is wrong.

Spirits, which means history. God. The bible. The flood, the tower of Babel, angels marrying women, creation, etc.

First of all, spirits do not mean history. Do school students open their spirit books and learn the spirits of WW2?

Secondly, none of those other things has any supporting evidence that can be checked for truthfullness. All you are doing with those is saying, "This first guy says one thing, and I know he's right because this second guy also says that same thing!"

I do not miss that at all. Not sure what you are thinking. However, we can say that time is thought of as part of the space time fabric throughout the universe by science, right?

Yes, Time is a part of space time.

Not sure what point you are making here though...

Bingo!!!! "In" the universe. The one that earth folks look at from earth in this time! However, what needs to be known to get perspective is that there is an independent time..the real macoy that does not require our universe. Man doesn't even know what time is.

Ah yes, this "independent time" for which you have produced absolutely no evidence whatsoever! With such a strong argument based on nothing at all, how can we ever hope to defeat your non-existent facts?

False, they are based on assuming daughter material ALL came to exist in the way it is now produced.

I'm open to the possibility that the daughter material got there by some other means. BUT (and this is very important), any other explanation must explain why all the rock samples have exactly the same amount of daughter material in them. Why don't we see wildly varying amounts of daughter material? And why is the amount of daughter material exactly what radiometric dating predicts? How can an incorrect method produce such accurate results?

False Islam just started to exist some centuries ago, not even a player in the creation debate!!! I think they accept that Gabriel told them stuff, but will not accept the stuff Gabriel said before that contradicts that. (correct me if I have that wrong someone knowledgeable in that faith)

The age of the religion is irrelevant. Just because Christianity was around before Islam doesn't make Christianity correct. After all, there were religions around before Christianity, and that doesn't make them correct, does it?

The point is that a religion can have things which it is claimed prove it true. In fact, just about every religion has these things. Of course, you find such arguments, when applied to other religions, entirely unconvincing, and yet you seem to think that the exact same argument applied to Christianity proves it beyond any doubt. This is a double standard and hopelessly illogical.

Get used to the idea that you cannot defeat me. That was apparent long ago, and only crystallizes with time ...doesn't matter what little claim you stick in your sig.

Look at my usertitle and signature. I have defeated you. I defeated you the instant I brought up the subject of radiometric dating, because according to your DSP notion, radiometric dating is impossible. The only reason you keep arguing is because you are ignorant of science, as your posts in this thread prove again and again.